The Federal Government seems incredibly naïve when it comes to the history and culture of cronyism in the forest industry in Tasmania, but ignorance is no excuse when it comes to the spending of public money, Australian Greens Senator Christine Milne said today.

“No Commonwealth funding should flow to Tasmania from any forest agreement until the whole murky deal surrounding the Triabunna woodchip mill is exposed.

“Yesterday I asked federal Forestry Minister, Joe Ludwig to say what he knows about Forestry Tasmania guaranteeing the supply of wood for the Triabunna mill in the light of revelations that Forestry Tasmania had entered into a profit sharing arrangement with the chip mill buyer, Aprin.

“Here we have the Federal Government being asked to bankroll an end to logging in Tasmania and a Forest Principles Agreement which has “no new contracts” as a benchmark, and Forestry Tasmania actively undermining that agreement with what is effectively a new contract with its “profit sharing agreement.

“Loss sharing agreement is more likely.

“At the same time the public is being told that the Tasmanian government approached Aprin to seek loan funding for the purchase of the mill.

“Which Minister in Tasmania authorised the approach to Aprin?”

“Who else is behind the Fibre Plus company?”

“What is the loan amount under consideration and who is doing the due diligence on the loan application?”

“With the Auditor-General’s report into the financial and economic performance of Forestry Tasmania painting a clear picture of a native logging industry on its knees and these new revelations, it is time for some tough intervention from Canberra,” Senator Milne said.

The Tasmanian Greens today stepped up their campaign over Aprin’s loan application and sought to cut through the murk and uncertainty which surrounds this whole sorry affair, and asked the Minister for Economic Development, David O’Byrne MP, to come clean on precisely what was going on.

Greens Forestry spokesperson Kim Booth MP sought clarification over whether the risk to interest payments would reside with Forestry Tasmania or with Treasury, saying that information should be considered in the public interest.

Mr Booth also reiterated that it was due to the work of the Greens Economic Development spokesperson, Tim Morris MP, that the Aprin loan process was exposed.

“Mr O’Byrne confirmed that no taxpayer money has yet been transferred from the Government or the Tasmanian Development Board to Aprin or it’s front company, Fibre Plus, and that the final determination has yet to be made due to conditions precedent still outstanding, which was good to hear.”

“In this regard, the process remains underway, nothing has changed, and therefore my statements regarding any potential future no-confidence motion in the event of this loan being finalized, and money being handed over, stands unchanged.”

“The Minister was unable or unwilling to say whether the loan, if it goes ahead, has been structured in such a way that, in the event that the borrower, Aprin, is unable to make a profit, the interest will not be payable, but, in fact, will be borne by another party.”

“Minister O’Byrne was also unable to say if it would be the public purse that would be assuming that interest risk, through Forestry Tasmania or the Department of Economic Development taking on exposure to the loan.”

“Whether this loan proceeds or not, the Greens intend to get to the bottom of exactly what is being cooked up here with Forestry Tasmania’s involvement.”

GREENS MP Kim Booth’s threat to topple the Government has been postponed.

In the last sitting day of State Parliament yesterday before the winter recess, Mr Booth did not bring on his much-anticipated no-confidence motion, despite taunts from the Opposition.

Mr Booth says he doesn’t believe the prospective buyers of the Triabunna woodchip will meet the conditions of the government loan he so vehemently opposes.

“Until such time as there’s money actually changing hands and the final conditions have been met I won’t be bringing on a no-confidence motion because it serves no purpose,” he said.

“I think it’s a cynical move for the Government to get involved in a grubby deal like this.

“I think all Tasmanians are horrified, at a time when electricity prices are rising and all sorts of cutbacks to front-line services are occurring, that the Government would be involved in a behind-the-scenes grubby deal to buy a woodchip mill with public funds.

“But if this deal proceeds I will move a no-confidence motion in the Government.”

Liberal leader Will Hodgman was angry that Mr Booth didn’t make good on his threat.

The Liberal Party supports the Fibre Plus loan but remains open to supporting a no-confidence motion.

“Kim Booth has shown himself to have no heart and no conviction,” Mr Hodgman said.

“He has now joined the rest of the Greens as being a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Labor Government.

“The last true Green with any standards and any principles has checked out and he’s checked his principles in at the door.”

Amid taunting from the Opposition benches, Greens leader Nick McKim challenged the Liberal Party to bring on a motion of its own.

“If you’re so keen why don’t you move one yourselves?” he said.

“Show some guts for once. Have you got the guts? Have you got the ticker?

THE State Government is set to begin a $250,000 survey to tally up the worth of carbon in Tasmania’s state forests.

The Forest Carbon Study will put a value on the state’s forests, including managed forests and conserved areas.

The Government is expected to put the carbon survey out for tender soon, with a result expected before the end of the year.

Premier Lara Giddings said the study would ensure that any future approach to determine the amount of carbon stored in the state’s forests was rigorous and that it was based on the best available science.

Fancy that, the government telling Aprin to apply for money when police, hospitals and schools were threatened by funding cuts. No doubt the Liberals would approve of this as well - anything to ensure “business as usual” continues.

Posted by salamander on 07/07/11 at 11:33 AM

All of this is vital information. Tasmania is on a ticket to ride and it is not going anywhere with the Pulp industry and it hasn’t been getting the true value for timber since 1975. We need to use precious Timber for the building and use hemp, banana leaves etc to produce cellulose for fibre products.
The cellulose in the pith of Hemp can even be used to produce an aggregate in Concrete and yet all we are focussed on is old technology. It is a wasteful process not a useful one.

Posted by Robert Vincent on 07/07/11 at 12:43 PM

Well, Kim Booth, Nick McKim - and Bob Brown, for that matter - you might as well admit that you’ve approved Gunns Tamar Valley Pulp Mill. Blocking the slimy sale of the Triabunna mill was the final hurdle in getting the pulp mill up and running again. Now that we have no parliamentary Opposition in this state, the Greens have trashed their own name - and constituency - by caving in and supporting the pulp mill by proxy at every crucial turn of events. Shame, Greens, shame, better to vote independent or informal than for a sham opposition. You show no principles by continuing to endorse the ‘forest principles’. You have abrogated responsibility. You are culpable.

Posted by Bob Kendra on 07/07/11 at 01:53 PM

The announcement of a profit-sharing arrangement between industry charity FT and (it’s?) $24 company due to become its main customer takes inadvertent transparency to the level of the grossly obscene.

The profit sharing arrangement will allow FT to continue liquidating native forest at below cost, but they will now be able to conceal losses under Tasmania’s unique “commercial in confidence” doctrine, which is best seen as the local euphemism for the right against self-incrimination.

Lara’s claim that she just didn’t have any details on whether the public would be liable for FT’s chronic losses would have brought down the house, if the house hadn’t already been in ruins.

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 07/07/11 at 01:54 PM

This time the call is fierce and loud upon the people to halt the duplicitous, the anti-the-people dealings happening so regularly within this State government and their shockingly poor fidelity conducts conciliates and behaviours.

This State is flat out going to hell whilst the logging operators and wood-chippers continually interfere in the doings of State government.
I cannot understand the tolerance by the Federal government of this delinquent State government, forever having to deal with the demanding cries and squeals for more money to support the ruinous actions and outcomes blazed upon our Native Forests, simply for logging same for fool-bastard wood-chips that will destroy our State?

Posted by William Boeder on 07/07/11 at 03:25 PM

Royal Commission NOW

Posted by One who knows on 07/07/11 at 03:42 PM

And to top it all off the Minister for Incoherent statements (BG 1 ) has told us that the State Government are going to use more of our debt to pay Gunns not to log.
They made a commercial decision ages ago to stop native forest logging, this decision was theirs alone. Now we are supposed to pay them to stop doing what they have already stopped doing.
And so we buy back their contracts (which they broke) and FT then goes against the statement of principles and signs new contracts to sell wood to themselves.(of course under commercial in confidence).
Great

Posted by Pete Godfrey on 07/07/11 at 05:53 PM

Just what does ‘commercial in confidence’ actually mean??? My understanding is that it is when the gov’t or anyone else does a deal that they are ashamed of. Is it another saying for ‘dodgy backroom deal’???

Posted by suspicious mind on 07/07/11 at 05:59 PM

4; I have to agree John. Something needs to be done about this commercial in confidence BS.
It’s tax payers money and it should be possible to hold the Government to account and require them to justify the need for secrecy.
If the State is assisting Aprin, a side effect of this should be that the whole deal is open to public scrutiny. The public is effectively becoming a silent shareholder and as such is entitled to know the full details of the transaction.
This should be the normal procedure when taxpayers funds are deployed and when they wish to conduct confidential transactions, they should have to put forward an application, justifying why it’s necessary to hide the details.
This is not their money, it’s our money and we employ public servants to make good decisions on our behalf. As such the decisions have to be open to scrutiny.

Posted by Steve on 07/07/11 at 06:00 PM

#2. I doubt if Tasmania has ever gotten the ‘true’value for its timber.

Posted by phill Parsons on 07/07/11 at 10:29 PM

#8
What is a ‘Commercial in Confidence’?
Best Answer -
Essentially, “commercial-in-confidence” simply means “confidential information”. It usually refers to things such as defence contracts where the supplier wishes its materials to be treated confidentially.

SENATE ORDER ON DEPARTMENTAL AND AGENCY CONTRACTS
The Senate Order on Departmental and Agency Contracts (last amended December 2003) requires all Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) agencies to place on their web sites information in relation to the contracts entered into by each agency and the use of commercial-in-confidence provisions in contracts.

Defence is pleased to provide a list of contracts valued at $100,000 or greater in satisfaction of the requirements of the Senate Order. The list for calendar year 2010 includes 10,840 Defence and DMO contracts valued at $100,000 or more (5,805 for Defence and 5,035 for DMO). The list excludes contracts that are confidential for national security reasons.

Interim Defence Contracts Register (IDCR)
TOP
Defence has used the IDCR since January 2003 to gather the information necessary to meet the requirement of the Senate Order. Each IDCR listing provides the name of the contractor, subject matter, value of the contract, commencement date, expected duration, confidentiality provisions, other requirements of confidentiality and reasons for confidentiality. In August 2007, the definition of reportable contracts was broadened to include leases, disposals, deeds, financial guarantees, short term employment contracts and contract changes which vary the contract value by less than $A20m. Data collection on confidentiality provisions was also made mandatory.

Commercial-in-Confidence information

The Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines (December 2008) state that agencies should ‘consider, on a case-by-case basis, any request by a potential supplier for material to be treated confidentially’ after the award of a contract. The Defence Materiel Organisation term ‘commercial-in-confidence’ has the same meaning as ‘confidential information’ that is used frequently by Defence and other government agencies, parliament and the courts.—
===============
There we have it
Forestry in Tasmania is a War Industry against invading Rainforest schrub species, and the Industry is simply defending itself against the owners of the forest.
Stakeholders need to be kept at secure distance from factual information in order to avoid competition from potential alternative operators.

Just like that.

Posted by Factfinder on 08/07/11 at 08:20 AM

Bob Kendra 3. I don’t think the Greens have ‘approved’ the Tamar Valley pulp mill. TasInc has back-stabbed them just as brutally. The Greens precious forest peace agreement has been trashed by the continuation of native forest wood-chipping at Triabunna. This is much worse for the Greens. I agree they don’t care about the Tamar Valley, but Lara has hurt them very deeply. Their supporters in the Huon and Derwent must be fuming.

Posted by Karl Stevens on 08/07/11 at 08:41 AM

Gunns were given a wood supply agreement with conditions that they failed to honour. Not only did they fail to honour this deal, they expect the taxpayers to pay them for breaking the deal. The only excuse for expecting payment is they are returning the forests as part of the forest peace deal, but Forestry Tasmania have now given possible the same deal to Aprin to continue the same process. If Aprin fail to make a profit which was the problem with Gunns, will we the tax payers pay Aprin to walk away. If Gunns want money for their wood supply agreement and Aprin are going to take over from Gunns, Aprin should be paying Gunns, not us.

Posted by max on 08/07/11 at 09:12 AM

A closed down, non operating mill is for sale. There is a keen cashed-up buyer, two successful business people, with great plans for the area, money ready…...
Another would-be buyer, with NO money at all also wants the mill. Government is asked (or offers?) a loan to buy this mill. Government grants the loan, using OUR money, but refuses to tell us how much it is, or exactly who these people are.
Sorry, I just don’t get it !
Heather Donaldson

Posted by Heather Donaldson on 08/07/11 at 09:48 AM

My wife and I dream of returning to Tasmania so that our children will have lives equal or better to our own childhoods.
In Tasmania clean air,clean non polluted drinking water,carbon friendly beer and families enjoying leisurely virgin native Gondwanic forests are the images Tourism Tasmania and the State government falsely advertise on giant placards here on the mainland.
We came back to Tassie last christmas for a reconnaissance holiday.
I think the Tasmanian State government need to change their advertising campaign.
Come to Tasmania where great hulks of toxic diesel exhaust vomiting,native forest gorging log trucks,driven by mindless morons will run you off the road.
Where greying nomads and families whose dreams have been to come to ‘Pure,natural Tasmania’ for a quiet,reflective and nature inspired holiday can try and find accommodation in the scores of well maintained caravan parks and holiday amenities that we don’t have.
Where the drinking water is slowing being poisoned from phosphate and DDT runoffs from FT logging coupes.
And where our State mascot and world wide famous icon, The sublime and magnificent Tassie Devil slips quietly into a mouth rotting extinction.
Tassie…you’re dreamin.

Posted by Tassie dreamin'. on 08/07/11 at 10:23 AM

As if any more proof was needed, Jack Shit is the difference the Greens are making to an abysmal government!

Posted by Tom on 08/07/11 at 11:55 AM

This true#16. Two Greens cross the floor and snap up private opportunities. Another goes limp on the threshold of a no-confidence motion. Our votes for Green mean SFA. Mix the green, the blue and the red and get a colour not much unlike what we’ve got in State Parliament. I really believe that we have been betrayed and now have a case for an option not to vote at all.

Posted by ALF1 on 08/07/11 at 02:33 PM

It is now beyond any possible doubt that the entire Forestry Round Table process was a sham. From any analysis, the process has descended into an extortion attempt by Gunns against the people of Tasmania.

Ms. Giddings now tells us that “As part of the Statement of Principles it is fundamental that the Triabunna mill continues into the future,” (Forest peace rests on sale, Mercury July 8th). When did this pre-condition appear on the agenda?

We will soon discover the scope of several other inter-related matters in the Government’s secret negotiations drawer:
- The payment of massive compensation to Gunns by the Tasmanian public for “handing back” their native forest logging “entitlements”;
- The connections between the loan to Aprin/Fibre Plus and the Gunns compensation;
- The extent to which the proposed “profit-sharing” agreement between FT and Aprin/Fibre Plus is a way of hiding the cash-cost of the Gunns compensation in the FT accounts.

Our forest industries are being held to ransom by a common thug. The public must demand that our weakling negotiators call their bluff.

Tasmania can flourish without Gunns.

Ben Quin

Posted by Ben Quin on 08/07/11 at 04:26 PM

When I read TT these days I find the lack of patience by most as quite sad. Woodchipping has been around for about 30-40 years. There was a spike in exports with the RFA and Jim Bacon “promised” an exit from old growth by 2001. This was then extended to 2009 and followed by the 17 year resource guarantee.

Since the GFC the Tasmanian woodchip industry has died. Vested interests and the major parties are trying to maintain it but, in the wider context, the transition out of old growth continues. There is little cash-strapped political parties can do.

The round table with its ENGOs and Our Common Ground have a role as do the Greens and Andrew Wilkie. Kim Booth made the right call to defer a ‘no confidence’ motion. I was extremely impressed with Ms Milne’s call to withhold any compensation until the Aprin deal, as a new contract outside the SOP, is dead. If there is one thing FIAT and the Tasmanian government understands it is “no more federal funds.”

Yet the calls on TT and other media screams for the end of duly elected governments at state and federal levels. It’s called a rabble or a mob. Australia is only now recovering from its division in the Whitlam dismissal. Of course, many critics are really only anti-Greens or anti-ALP being “clever.”

Me? I’ve watched this saga for a long time across Australia (eg Jarvis’ Fraser Island). I’m patient.

Posted by Mark on 08/07/11 at 06:01 PM

News flash - Lara has made yet another definitive statement, saying “As part of the Statement of Principles it is fundamental, essential, vital and paramount to the success of the Statement of principles, that anything, anything that improves the chance of the stinking mill, or Gunns, getting more taxpayers money continues into the future. This, I truly believe is our only way into the future, to heal the divisions in the community and bring about a viable forest industry, valued by all the pigs I see flying around me.”

Posted by dan of db on 08/07/11 at 06:35 PM

The question of Gunns being compensated is troubling. Others have pointed out that Gunns’ decision to pull out of native forest was their own decision, and pre-dated the round table stuff.

As it stands, both FT and Gunns can walk away from the woodsupply agreements without penalty. They have to give 6 months notice, that’s all.

If Gunns wish, they can sell (assign) their entitlements under the contract to other parties. FT cannot unreasonably withold consent for such a transfer.

For all we know, Gunns might already have arranged to onsell their entitlements to Aprin or even Artec! (Though you’d think that FT would be trying to stop this at least until they could get back the money they reckon Gunns owe them.)

[LTPSA - Schedule 13: 15(1)]

Posted by Garry Stannus on 08/07/11 at 06:36 PM

Garry Stannus is correct. This arrangement merely continues the partnership between the state government and Gunns. That’s why Gidding’s claims of not being ‘corrupt’ are all just hot air.

Posted by Karl Stevens on 08/07/11 at 08:22 PM

It seems to me that under the circumstances, paying compensation to Gunns is analogous to me ordering a large flat screen television from a shop, then deciding I don’t want to buy it after all and following that up with a demand that the owner of the shop compensate me for not buying something I didn’t want anyway. The obvious absurdity of this is staggering. No doubt, however, Giddens and Green, channeling Sir Joh and Russ Hinze (or should it be the other way around?), will come up with some double-speak rationalisation for it, but in my opinion it is just a way of funneling public money to Gunns for their effluent factory on the Tamar.

Posted by RJ Peak on 09/07/11 at 12:15 AM

Mark 19. I like your cute little term ‘duly elected’. You ave avoided ‘democratically elected’ because we all know that Giddings and Gillard are not majority elected. Here we have a party that lost the last election, and is using our money to buy real estate from Gunns, and not even telling us how much it cost. This is just sheer arrogance on the part of Giddings.

Posted by Karl Stevens on 09/07/11 at 09:56 AM

Kim Booth clearly stated that until finances have been obviously directed to Gunns then he would call for a no confidence motion. Finance going to Gunns has not happened yet; it’s political spin to suggest that Kim Booth is in league with the Labour Government.

A no confidence motion would be supported by the Liberals; with the most likely possibility of a new election, or the Liberals go into minority Government. The Liberals would then hypercritically go ahead with supporting Gunns in any way possible. Which ever way we vote in relation to the big parties we get shot in the head; they simply do not care what people in the electorates think.

The whole issue of handouts by private interests to political parties needs to be closely scrutinised by an independent Agency.

This time it’s Kim Booth who’s in the dock.
His crime? Being consistent.
The charge? ‘That he did make a public undertaking which has since been misrepresented’.

“Tasmanian Greens MP Kim Booth is threatening to bring on a no-confidence motion in the minority State Government if it lends money to a company to buy Gunns’ Triabunna woodchip mill.
Mr Booth says he will bring on the motion if Fibre Plus Tasmania receives a Government loan to buy the east coast mill from Gunns.”

DETAILS:
1 Greens raise questions in Parliament over possible govt loan to Aprin’s ‘Fibre Plus’)
2 It emerges that two govt ministers have approved the loan
3 Kim Booth promises to move a motion of no-confidence if Aprin is given any public money. (July 4)
4 Mercury article (July 7) reprinted in TT creates unfounded expectation that a no confidence motion would be that very day.
5 By that final day of Parliament’s Autumn session Aprin has not finalised the deal and has not received any loan - the no-confidence motion is thus not triggered.
6 Mercury (July 8) reprinted in TT now feeds off itself and writes “In the last sitting day of State Parliament yesterday before the winter recess, Mr Booth did not bring on his much-anticipated no-confidence motion” Will Hodgman is not happy, wanting both the loan to go through and then to have the no confidence motion because of it
7 Various commenters in the Mercury and on TT indicate that many erroneously believe that Kim Booth had backed down on his undertaking.

VERDICT:
Mr Booth is quite clearly guilty of having been misrepresented, falsely accused and vilified. He continues to show no regret for his ingrained honesty, integrity and consistency in this particular matter. He has refused to show any appreciation of his crime and we can be thankful that many good accusers came forward to ensure that misinformation should not come second best to the pernicious social crime of truth.

SENTENCE:
Mr Booth is sentenced to the hard labor of trying to make a difference, and shall continue to run a gauntlet between vested interests, Libs and Labs, congenital cynics, anti-Greens and anti-greens, as well as those who like to watch a damn good flogging and those who think there must be something going on, (‘otherwise why are all these people making so much noise?’) The gauntleteers shall line up to knock him down, jeer, yell, abuse, condemn and they may use whatever means at their disposal. He is not to be given any assistance, he is a politician, and that means any true Australian/Tasmanian is expected to believe the worst in him.
If Mr Booth emerges at the other end of the gauntlet, then it will be obvious that his guilt remains, and so we will have no choice but to return him to the Parliament, where the usual instruments of torture by the ungrateful public can be righteously applied.
Mr Booth, you worked hard to be given the job, you continue to do so, you show wide ability and effectiveness within and without the Chamber, you take your responsibilities seriously, and have been true to your word. Alas, we see no prospect of reforming you.

Thank you Gunns: You have inadvertently given me great wisdom
My friend has told me i can have the tree that strong winds have uprooted in his yard for firewood.
It is in my interests to accept his offer because later on i can change my mind and not accept his offer.
The next step is to charge him for the tree and with the money i will receive i can buy a load of cut and split firewood ready for burning.
Thanks a lot.

—
Editor’s note: please note the TT code of conduct http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/pages/legalbits “Lower case letters are quieter and softer on the eyes; upper case words are the equivalent of shouting. Tasmanian Times simply doesn’t have time to retype comments or parts of comments which include capitals. Sorry, but comments which include sentences in capitals will be deleted.” On this occasion we retyped the short capitalised sentences but please note that we just don’t have the time to do this next time.

Posted by D.I.Nicholas on 10/07/11 at 08:29 PM

#24, assuming the Electoral Act defines fair electoral boundaries then the various members of Parliament are duly and democratically elected. It is then up to Parliament to elect by majority its Ministers and Prime Minister/Premier. Sometimes a party can govern in its own right. Sometimes a party needs either a coalition (eg the Liberals and Nationals) to gain that majority. This is nothing new. A ministry can continue to govern until it loses the confidence of the House of Parliament. Until then we can all just patiently accept it.

Posted by Mark on 11/07/11 at 07:32 AM

#25 Keith Antonysen, how true, however it would cause a ruckus at the State Governor’s cottage down Hobart way, we may yet see our State Governor having to seek out his black hood for the passing of sentence upon the unfortunates of one or other of our State political parties.

His role to swear in the duly elected State government come this next election, will not be without its usual theatrical farce whereby either we in Tasmania vote for a Gunns Ltd supporting Liberal party or another Gunns Ltd supporting Labor party, either way we the people of Tasmania will cop it in the neck no matter which way the vote goes?
So, which of the anti-the-people political parties will the Governor choose to thrust upon the humble citizens?
As for the Greens having sway at the possible upcoming election, our Kim Booth will romp home in his seat, though 2 particularly well heeled and well coiffured Greens ministers wearing the most expensive colognes may not fare so well?

At the very best outcome, people will just not vote at all?

(Were I a leader of either the Libs or Labs, I would hope the Greens won the election outright as there aint much in the way of taxpayer monies to splash against the wall to try to turn the tide of discontent now swirling about the feet of the people?
Still the perks and handsome pay cheque for doing the least possible, for the people of this State may still attract the “who gives a rat’s for strutting peacocks type,” to go about knocking on a few doors and to kiss some mother’s noisy squalling little brats.

Posted by William Boeder on 11/07/11 at 10:12 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.